Win a Free Copy of Prince Caspian on DVD!
E-MAIL NEWSLETTERS







There was an error processing this request. We cannot subscribe you to newsletters at this time. Please contact technical support with details.
Featured Sponsors
Blogs Sponsorship

About Michael Craven

Michael is the President of the Center for Christ & Culture; a ministry dedicated to discipleship and renewal within the Church that works to equip Christians with an intelligent, thoroughly Christian and missional approach to culture.

Search The Bible   
Advanced Search
<< >>

Michael Craven

Author, Speaker, Founding Director of the Center for Christ & Culture

  • Monday, December 1, 2008
    Adrift From Our Past

    Last week my family and I spent another Thanksgiving at my wife’s ancestral farm, a beautiful spot located between Navasota and Brenham in historic Washington County, known as the birthplace of the Republic of Texas in 1836. The land, possessing rolling hills, tranquil ponds, and a plethora of bluebonnets (in the spring) has been in my wife’s family since the mid-nineteenth century. It is a wonderful place, rich in beauty and nostalgia. I confess: it is one of our favorite places on earth.

    It was during this trip that we occasioned to visit the museum in nearby Chappell Hill (population 553) where the region’s—and much of my wife’s family—history are on display. Housed in what used to be the Chappell Hill Female College (established in 1856), one felt immediately transported into another place and time. There were letters, photographs, and placards, all of which offered amazing insight into the lives and culture of this nearly forgotten community.

    I was reminded that history is not merely some abstract record of facts and events, but rather the record of prior human beings made in God’s image and their experiences dealing with the challenges and opportunities of life within a fallen and yet beautiful world. This form of history is what connects us to our own personal past, in the case of my wife and children, but also our collective cultural past as Americans. This connection, I would argue, is of profound importance—if for no other reason than it tends to arrest our tendency toward self-centered individualism, which not only disconnects us from our past but also from enjoying real “community” in the present.

    In Scripture, God Himself continually reinforces the importance of the past as a valid means of knowledge that is helpful in guiding us into the future through His dealings with the nation of Israel. God was continually commanding the people of Israel to remember what He had done for them in prior generations, so that they would remain steadfast in their faith and obedience. In the New Testament, Jesus established the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper as a sacred ceremony of remembrance so that every subsequent generation of believers would recall and reflect upon the Lord’s ultimate act of grace and mercy.

    Every human action, both past and present, is either in accord with or in contradiction to the truth as revealed in Scripture and confirmed in nature. History is the record of these acts, both great and small, that we can examine and, one hopes, discern from a biblical perspective so that we, too, may walk uprightly in our own day.

    So what did I learn from my encounter with history in Chappell Hill, Texas? First and foremost, these—and, frankly, their generation—were a people with a strong sense of community. Much of their life and activity was invested in contributing to the establishment and maintenance of important civic and social institutions that enriched their community.

    In this small rural hamlet, the citizenry established two institutions of higher learning: the Chappell Hill Female College mentioned earlier, and Soule University, a Methodist college for men with chairs in law, medicine, and biblical science. Community leaders in Chappell Hill established five churches, thriving industries, a Masonic Lodge, a railroad line, and numerous social organizations, such as the Mandolin Club, Racquet Club, and Study Club (whose subjects included the opera). These efforts and activities continued well into the twentieth century.

    These “civic virtues” contrast dramatically with the determined individualism so prevalent in today’s culture. In Robert Putnam’s important book Bowling Alone, he points out, “For the first two-thirds of the twentieth century a powerful tide bore Americans into ever deeper engagement in the life of their communities, but a few decades ago—silently, without warning—that tide reversed and we were overtaken by a treacherous rip current. Without at first noticing, we have been pulled apart from one another and from our communities over the last third century” (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2000).

    Letters collected from the women of that era revealed that they were active in the study of theology and philosophy, representing a generation that pursued education for education’s sake and not merely as a means to an end. There were no college courses—or interest, for that matter—to study techniques helpful in selling nonessential consumer goods. Even in high school, as evidenced by a report card from 1887, the subjects were rooted in the humanities, logic, and elocution. I admit that I had to chuckle at the grading system of that day. Grades were based on a ten-point scale, with ten being perfect and five failing. However, they were anything but ambivalent about substandard work. The failing grade of five was described “5 = Very bad and a complete failure”—a stark contrast to today’s educational philosophy that often exalts self-esteem above personal responsibility measured by absolute standards.

    In addition to the aforementioned subjects, there was also on display a copy of A View of the Evidences of Christianity by William Paley, which was part of the core curriculum in the local public school. Published in 1794, Evidences is an extremely scholarly work in which Paley supplemented human reason with divine revelation as supporting foundations for the existence of God and miracles over and against the deistic thinkers of his time, addressing some his arguments specifically against the notable David Hume. This was not a superficial course in bible stories that merely satisfied cultural religiosity typical of “country folk.” Here again, we see a society that was very intentional in its effort to transmit its faith from one generation to the next.

    The loss of community and civic virtue, along with all of their deleterious effects; the inadequate transmission of values and beliefs from one generation to the next; the reduction of education to mere utilitarian purposes; and the idealization of a superficial existence are symptomatic of a culture adrift from its past. The solution to these issues lies within the realm of a renewed church that endeavors to recover historic Christianity and press these unchanging biblical values into contemporary public life and culture.

    © 2008 by S. Michael Craven

    Comment on this article here

    Subscribe to Michael's weekly commentary here

    Subscribe to Michael's podcast here



    S. Michael Craven is the President of the Center for Christ & Culture. Michael is the author of Uncompromised Faith (Navpress), which is scheduled for release January 2009. (You can pre-order a signed copy HERE) Michael's ministry is dedicated to renewal within the Church and works to equip Christians with an intelligent and thoroughly Christian approach to matters of culture in order to demonstrate the relevance of Christianity to all of life. For more information on the Center for Christ & Culture, the teaching ministry of S. Michael Craven, visit: www.battlefortruth.org

    Michael lives in the Dallas area with his wife Carol and their three children. 
    • Email
    • Print
    • Discuss
  • Sunday, November 23, 2008
    Giving Thanks
    As we once again approach this national day of thanksgiving, I thought it necessary to reflect upon our nation’s long history of acknowledging and giving thanks to Almighty God.

    On October 3, 1789, George Washington issued the nation’s first presidential proclamation in which he called the nation to set aside a day for giving thanks to that “great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be …”

    President Washington gave under his official hand the following words:

    Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor …

    Furthermore, President Washington acknowledged that he was joined by the Congress in his appeal to the nation:

    Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to “recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness”… that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

    This presidential proclamation represented, in unequivocal terms, the government’s call upon the people of this nation to acknowledge and give thanks to God for His many and abundant blessings. These were not benign religious platitudes but absolute statements reflecting the consensus view of life and reality, which acknowledged that there is one God; the God who has revealed Himself in Scripture, in nature, and in the person of Jesus Christ. It is this God that the nation once acknowledged and it is this God, the one true God, that the people of this nation have turned against and today refuse to acknowledge and serve.

    President Washington concluded his proclamation with these words:

    And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

    Seventy-four years later, in the midst of the great Civil War, President Lincoln would issue a similar call to the nation acknowledging the nation’s many blessings from the Lord, “… who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.” President Lincoln, like our first president, would once again call the nation to national thanksgiving and repentance with these words:

    And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience … and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility and Union.

    America, in its folly, has been in the process of severing its national identity and dependence from the God who has given it birth and blessed it for so long. Therefore, it seems to me that we might be well served to recall the proclamation of these great men set aside for this Thanksgiving holiday and once again give thanks to Almighty God for His longsuffering patience and mercy toward this nation and humbly repent of our national rebellion and wanton disregard for all that is holy and just.

    This national repentance begins in the church, which has seemingly lost its way—abandoned (practically speaking) its first love and so often conformed to the world. May we on this Thanksgiving Day acknowledge the many and abundant blessings of Almighty God accompanied by a deep and sorrowful repentance for our individual, corporate, and national sins. This, my dear brothers and sisters, is our only hope and it is for this real hope and the promise of forgiveness that we can give thanks indeed! 

    May the Lord, in His great mercy, pour out His spirit upon you, your families, His church, and this nation this Thanksgiving Day.

    © 2008 by S. Michael Craven

    Comment on this article here

    Subscribe to Michael's weekly commentary here

    Subscribe to Michael's podcast here



    S. Michael Craven is the President of the Center for Christ & Culture. Michael is the author of Uncompromised Faith (Navpress), which is scheduled for release January 2009. (You can pre-order a signed copy HERE) Michael's ministry is dedicated to renewal within the Church and works to equip Christians with an intelligent and thoroughly Christian approach to matters of culture in order to demonstrate the relevance of Christianity to all of life. For more information on the Center for Christ & Culture, the teaching ministry of S. Michael Craven, visit: www.battlefortruth.org

    Michael lives in the Dallas area with his wife Carol and their three children.

    • Email
    • Print
    • Discuss
  • I received many responses to last week’s article, Marriage Survives! Can it Endure? Some revealed the very problem I was addressing: the next generation, including many Christians, are either confused or compromised on the issue of homosexuality and, by implication, biblical authority.

    One young college student wrote:

    I have been a Christian all my life. I am ashamed at the way you put down homosexuals. You should educate yourself about the culture you are attacking. If Jesus was as exclusive as you how would the Gospel message have been spread? Love all God's children and learn something about a social group before you attack all of them as immoral sex freaks. Closed minded Christians like yourself are what is pushing us youth away from the church in the first place. Shame on you!

    After several lengthy e-mails back and forth, this central theme emerged:

    I think a lot of what this argument boils down to is our interpretations of Scripture. It seems to me that you are arguing that homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says so. Now I am no minister, and I’m sure you could provide more examples, but as far as I know the only book in the entire Bible that EXPLICITLY describes homosexuality as a sin is the Book of Leviticus. It seems that all your other scriptural evidence comes from verses concerning heterosexual marriage, to which you are reading in condemnations of homosexuality. The point here is that you seem to interpret the Bible very literally. But if you adhere to the Law as defined in the Old Testament then shouldn’t all Christians be kosher? Should we all stop eating pork, wearing clothes with more than one fabric, etc.? So if Christians can in fact break the Law of Moses then by what authority do you condemn homosexuality? Isn’t it the Law of Moses that gives you your position on homosexuality?

    He continues:

    Finally, here is my biggest problem with your position. You act as though your opinion of scripture is God’s. … Is your notion of truth not based on your own interpretation of scripture? And aren’t you a human? And if those two things are true, then isn’t your interpretation of scripture subject to the flaw that marks all humans? … A certain aspect of Christianity is left to mystery because none of us can ever fully understand God. Thus we are left to make the best decisions with what information we have. We are all unique so our decisions will be different, that doesn’t necessarily make them wrong. ONLY GOD gets to decide that. And you sir, are not God.

    The following is a portion of my response:

    I really appreciate the thoughtfulness with which you have responded (despite your occasional jabs). You have obviously thought deeply about this and I think we, as Christians, should consider these matters carefully. Also, Christian love compels us to reason together when we disagree in a way that does not undermine the unity we share in Christ. Clearly we are dealing with a complex issue that ultimately involves people who are precious to God. So I am in no way offering a reproach to those people living the homosexual lifestyle; I am instead addressing the behavior and testing—against Scripture—the proposition: is it morally right or wrong? This is, after all, our final authority for such determinations.
        That being the case, it is not fair to simply reduce our disagreement to the matter of interpretation. To do so, comes perilously close to the deconstructive approach to reading put forth by Jacques Derrida. While there is some truth to the postmodern claim that interpretations necessarily vary, it is incorrect to assume that because of this condition there is no possibility for ever discovering the truth. The truth is not found in interpretation but rather in the meaning of the text itself as established by the author. The proper approach to biblical interpretation is one in which the whole of Scripture is considered and what the Scriptures reveal to us about God and his moral character. In this way we are given a clearer picture. Certainly not complete in some cases, but neither incomplete in every instance.
        We may, for example, deduce different interpretations of the Bible’s intent regarding baptism, the Lord’s Supper, or eschatology, but this is only because the Scriptures are not exhaustive on these subjects. Good Christians can disagree on these matters and remain within orthodoxy.
        Furthermore, you are correct in asserting that we are “flawed” human beings and thus limited in our understanding. Our mind, along with every other aspect of our nature, is adversely affected by sin. This certainly hinders our ability to perfectly interpret God’s revelation. As the apostle Paul said, “We see through a glass darkly.” However, this is not true of everything in Scripture and it does not mean that we cannot know the truth about anything. This is where tradition and the collective wisdom of the Christian community are invaluable.
        For example, are the commandments against murder, adultery, and lying subject to interpretation beyond their implicit intent? Is the divinity of Jesus subject to interpretation? What about salvation through Christ alone? Certainly not, and I think you would likely agree. We understand these as absolutes. To venture beyond what are the accepted dogma, creeds, and doctrine of the church based solely on one’s own interpretation is to regard yourself as the ultimate and final authority. Suffice it to say that such an approach is fraught with peril and often leads to error.

    Suffice it to say, I went on to share numerous arguments that most of you have read before, including the New Testament passages (Romans 1: 24–28, 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 and 1 Timothy 1:8–11) that directly condemn homosexual acts. This dialogue clearly illustrates the problem within the church. However, as you can see here, the real problem is not rooted in the issue of same-sex marriage but biblical knowledge and authority. This young believer, like so many of his peers, has suffered far greater influence from the culture than discipleship from the church. It is in the church first that we must begin to create culture.

    Thankfully, this young man responded with grace and humility, writing, “I must first apologize … clearly I’ve over-estimated my own knowledge …” demonstrating that being prepared with an answer given with gentleness in love can persuade or at least encourage someone to reconsider his position, which is often a starting point.

    © 2008 by S. Michael Craven

    Comment on this article here

    Subscribe to Michael's weekly commentary here

    Subscribe to Michael's podcast here



    S. Michael Craven is the President of the Center for Christ & Culture. Michael is the author of Uncompromised Faith (Navpress), which is scheduled for release January 2009. (You can pre-order a signed copy HERE) Michael's ministry is dedicated to renewal within the Church and works to equip Christians with an intelligent and thoroughly Christian approach to matters of culture in order to demonstrate the relevance of Christianity to all of life. For more information on the Center for Christ & Culture, the teaching ministry of S. Michael Craven, visit: www.battlefortruth.org

    Michael lives in the Dallas area with his wife Carol and their three children.



    • Email
    • Print
    • Discuss
  • Monday, November 10, 2008
    Marriage Survives! Can it Endure?

    At the conclusion of my series In Defense of Marriage this past August, I wrote that the outcome of California’s Proposition 8 would figure prominently in the future of marriage in America. If the proposed amendment establishing that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized” was defeated, I predicted it would be nearly impossible to halt the radical homosexual movement and their efforts to redefine marriage and the natural family.

    In a momentous turn of events, Proposition 8 passed! The citizens of California—forced by circumstances—have codified what has been a self-evidential social norm throughout human history. Similar measures passed overwhelmingly in Florida and Arizona, bringing to 30 the total number of states that have amended their constitutions in order to protect marriage from special interest revisions. And in Arkansas, citizens voted to protect children by barring their adoption by homosexual couples. We should all be mightily encouraged by these events.

    However, these political victories will be temporary if we do not strengthen the cultural understanding of and commitment to marriage. There is a distinct difference between politics and culture, one that I think we in the church often fail to understand. Politics always follows and reflects culture—it does not create culture. This has been the case throughout history. A demographic breakdown of the vote relative to Proposition 8 equally confirms this point. Six out of ten voters over 60 supported the measure; among those between 30 and 60, the margin was slightly more than half. Among those under 30, sixty percent opposed Proposition 8. Zogby International surveyed high school seniors and found that 85 percent believe homosexuality is an “acceptable lifestyle.” The next generation will not hold this line against homosexual marriage unless there is a significant change in their worldview.

    You can see the trend. There has been a failure to transmit the values, customs, and beliefs (i.e., culture) of one generation to the next, and this cultural shift is then reflected in their politics. So how do we accomplish true cultural change versus only temporal political victories, which evidence indicates will only diminish?

    For the last two millennia, the Christian community, educated with ideas drawn from Scripture and applied to every area of life and reality, has been the most powerful culture-forming agent. In other words, the church is the instrument by which God brings forth His kingdom and as the kingdom spreads, the culture is Christianized. In a world of false ideas competing to explain the world, it was Christians, armed with the energy of an all-embracing life-system (i.e., Christian worldview) that shaped Western culture. This energy—now severed from its historic understanding—has been depleted in recent generations through spiritual sloth, theological ignorance, anti-intellectualism, and cultural apathy.

    If we hope to preserve the biblical and historic understanding of marriage, we must create a culture that honors marriage in the form established by God. To be clear, this effort is not collateral to the gospel and therefore dispensable, but rather it is an essential part of the gospel.

    Drawing from the words of Jesus, the gospel cannot possibly be understood apart from the kingdom. Jesus always described the gospel in relation to the kingdom. In Matthew 24:14 Jesus says, “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world …” Matthew described Jesus’ ministry by saying: “And Jesus went about all Galilee … preaching the gospel of the kingdom …” (4:23). Matthew reiterates this theme again in chapter 9 verse 35 when he writes, “Then Jesus went about all the cities and villages … preaching the gospel of the kingdom …” (nkjv, emphasis mine).

    Jesus told his disciples to “preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand’” (Matthew 10:7). Mark writes, “after John [the Baptist] was put in prison, Jesus came … preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God” (Mark 1:14, nkjv, emphasis mine). Clearly, by Jesus’ own words and the testimony of the apostles, Jesus was preaching the good news that through him God’s reign (i.e., the kingdom) has been initiated.

    The gospel (or good news) is the fact that in Christ, the reign of God is at hand and is now breaking into the world. His kingdom, which has come, continues to come forth and will be fully consummated on the day of Christ’s return. This is the good news! The promotion of God’s design for the family is part of that kingdom come that penetrates and transforms the fallen world in which Christ is making all things new.

    So how do we, the church, create a culture that embraces the kingdom view of marriage and family? First and foremost, we bear witness to the kingdom by living under the authority of the king within our own lives. This means we do not engage in sex outside of marriage. It means we do not cohabitate prior to or in place of marriage. It means we properly prepare those in the body of Christ for marriage and all of its responsibilities. It means we fight as a community for every marriage within the body that is in crisis. It means we exercise church discipline when necessary and it means we exalt and teach the biblical view of sex and marriage to the next generation so they are inoculated against the fickle cultural winds.

    It is our own conduct within the church that must set the example and thus define marriage first. It is the height of hypocrisy to attempt to instruct others about sexual ethics and marriage when our own behavior falls so short. Numerous studies reveal that premarital sex, cohabitation, divorce, and pornography are as pervasive within the American church as they are among the unchurched! A compromised church cannot produce a chaste and moral culture that upholds and honors marriage, much less advance the kingdom.

    Finally, this compromised state undermines an essential part of the Christian witness. Jesus himself established the fact that our conduct and relationships are a necessary component in our witness to the world (see John 13:35, 17:21–23). If we continue to fail on this vital point, the political winds will continue to shift, marriage will falter, and in the absence of this crucial cornerstone, our society will follow the path to ruin like so many before.

    © 2008 by S. Michael Craven

    Comment on this article here

    Subscribe to Michael's weekly commentary here

    Subscribe to Michael's podcast here



    S. Michael Craven is the President of the Center for Christ & Culture. Michael is the author of Uncompromised Faith (Navpress), which is scheduled for release January 2009. (You can pre-order a signed copy HERE) Michael's ministry is dedicated to renewal within the Church and works to equip Christians with an intelligent and thoroughly Christian approach to matters of culture in order to demonstrate the relevance of Christianity to all of life. For more information on the Center for Christ & Culture, the teaching ministry of S. Michael Craven, visit: www.battlefortruth.org

    Michael lives in the Dallas area with his wife Carol and their three children.

    • Email
    • Print
    • Discuss
  • Monday, November 3, 2008
    Have We Become Unfit for Democracy?
    In ancient Athens, two political parties—or social classes—vied for power: the oligarchs and the democrats. The oligarchs sought to establish a state in which only wealthy property owners could vote and hold public office, while the democrats insisted that all male citizens have the same rights. Aristotle summarized these competing approaches to government in Politics, writing, “An oligarchy is said to be that in which the few and the wealthy rule, and a democracy that in which the many and the poor are the rulers.”

    For most of the fifth and fourth centuries BC, Athens was a democracy. While the oligarchs only succeeded twice in establishing rule by the few over the many (in 411 and 404 BC), the struggle between these two forces was long, contentious, and occasionally bloody.

    Plato (427–347 BC), who is often described as the greatest Western philosopher, grew deeply disillusioned by the political conditions in his home city of Athens. Though tempted to turn his back on politics, Plato applied his considerable mental faculties to the problem of government in his most famous work, Republic.

    Plato had no faith in the rule of the rich; but neither was he confident in the ability of ordinary citizens to participate in the affairs of government. Plato observed that the oligarchs were driven by their own interests and during their short-lived regimes they demonstrated to what length they would go to defend the advantages of the few against the majority. However, the rule by the many wasn’t the solution, according to Plato, because the uninformed masses were too easily swayed by the emotional and deceptive rhetoric of ambitious politicians.

    In Plato’s mind, the only solution to this dilemma was to place government in the hands of the philosopher, those who had a cultivated sense of self-discipline by means of advanced reasoning abilities, i.e., Plato’s philosopher-king. Plato, who trusted ultimately in human reason, believed that without the self-discipline imposed by superior reason a person would easily fall into self-destructive gluttony or be carried away by foolish emotions and thoughtless ambitions. From a Christian point of view, we certainly value the gift of reason; however, Plato’s reasoning powers were focused inward on the human mind in search of answers, whereas we would argue that true truth can only be discovered by the application of human reason to God’s revelation.

    Nonetheless, Plato’s concern over the inability of the uninformed to adequately participate in the governance of the nation holds some truth. James Madison, a prominent founding father, asserted that “a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.” John Adams offered even greater clarity into the nature of this knowledge when he wrote, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. … Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (Emphasis mine.) In other words, it is moral knowledge informed by religion that best serves to restrain destructive human passions and enlighten the electorate, thus rendering them better equipped for governing themselves. Given the recent decline of this moral knowledge, the question must be asked: Have we grown unfit for democracy?

    While Plato argued that philosophical knowledge was the restraining factor in our appetites and desires, history has demonstrated that it is moral knowledge that best serves to restrain our selfish interests. As to the source of this moral knowledge, Boston College professor Peter Kreeft observes, “The fact is no society has ever yet existed that has successfully built its knowledge of morality on any basis other than religion” (Peter Kreeft, How to Win the Culture War [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002], 51).

    Unbridled by true religion and the moral knowledge that follows, the current political season reveals that the majority of Americans may have finally succumbed to self–destructive gluttony. Thus their choice on Tuesday may represent what Plato feared: that the masses, uninformed by [moral] reason, have been easily swayed by the emotional and deceptive rhetoric of ambitious politicians.

    The fundamental differences in the current presidential race are, in my estimation, these. On the one hand, there are those who believe moral issues are preeminent and that government should play a limited role in our lives. These are those that hold to a free constitutional republic. We appear to be in the minority. On the other hand, there are those who increasingly look to government as the solution to every societal ill and as a source of personal unmerited benefit, i.e., a socialist democracy similar to what we see in Western Europe. These appear to be, for the first time, in the majority. I would suggest that the latter come perilously close to those of whom Benjamin Franklin warned when he wrote, “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

    There is only one solution to this dilemma if this nation is to have any future. It is not political education nor is it even moral education, but rather religious education—and that being of the Christian religion. It is from this foundation alone that free societies arose to produce unparalleled prosperity, relieve human suffering, and establish human dignity.

    To be clear, this religious education is not merely of an academic nature, but should be of an incarnational nature. C. S. Lewis offers a proper description of this difference and its affect when he writes:

    A Christian society is not going to arrive until most of us really want it; and we are not going to want it until we become fully Christian. I may repeat “do as you would be done” till I am black in the face, but I cannot learn to carry it out till I love my neighbor as myself; and I cannot learn to love my neighbor as myself till I learn to love God; and I cannot learn to love God except by learning to obey Him. And so … we are driven on to something more inward—driven on from social matters to religious matters.

    So tomorrow we cast our votes and the day after—regardless of the outcome—let us return once again to religious matters; the higher calling of Christ.

    © 2008 by S. Michael Craven

    Comment on this article here

    Subscribe to Michael's weekly commentary here

    Subscribe to Michael's podcast here



    S. Michael Craven is the President of the Center for Christ & Culture. Michael is the author of Uncompromised Faith (Navpress), which is scheduled for release January 2009. (You can preorder your copy today on Amazon.com.) Michael's ministry is dedicated to renewal within the Church and works to equip Christians with an intelligent and thoroughly Christian approach to matters of culture in order to demonstrate the relevance of Christianity to all of life. For more information on the Center for Christ & Culture, the teaching ministry of S. Michael Craven, visit: www.battlefortruth.org

    Michael lives in the Dallas area with his wife Carol and their three children.

    • Email
    • Print
    • Discuss